Hence ex-bureaucrats, hotel managers, medical doctors, television actors, and even game show hosts have become “current affairs anchors”. It is to our dismay that this happened, because this further blurred the distinction between “anchor”, “host”, and “journalist”.

With the vast majority of the audience unable to differentiate between these three very separate categories, they applied the same standard to all. The bosses have no problem with it because they’re making money, and as long as there are no major infractions, these anchors can say pretty much anything they want, with complete impunity. Almost.

The rise of tajziakars

A major reason for the confusion between journalists and non-journalists is the rise of experts from varying public sector institutions, who claim to have expertise and knowledge, with insights gleamed for insider info only they, the selected few, possess. This is partially attributable to the rise of private media.

Having been a Current Affairs Producer for several shows, my anchor and I were pressurised on countless occasions into calling certain analysts to shows because they gave a ’higher rating’ due to their salacious style and vitriolic statements. Initially, this was reserved for certain politicians, but eventually the “tajziakar” class of experts emerged.

However, this is also because non-political institutions have sought to influence the media innumerous ways, either through their current or ex-cadre writing columns, or appearing on shows. Some institutions have even gone to the extent of making an approved list of analysts, while not officially representing the views of the institution.

Hence, former diplomats, bureaucrats, law enforcement officers, and military officers are the norm on TV channels now, representing while not representing, giving their own scoop with zero verification, while also being approved to give it without any direct affiliation.

In some exceptional cases, these tajziakars become so popular that they start hosting their own shows or becoming regular columnists. Once they have their own platform, they are free to rage over whatever takes their fancy, usually accompanied by a pretty female co-host, who’s only there to validate the views of the tajziakar. To make matters worse, in some cases, the female co-hosts are instructed not to ask any follow-up questions just to assuage the host's ego.

This creates a culture of ‘crystal ball’ truth telling and unverified gossip masquerading as serious investigative journalism. It becomes even more confusing for the viewer, harms credible reporting, and can seriously compromise the integrity of an ongoing investigation.

We saw this firsthand in the Zainab murder case where a doctor-cum-documentary filmmaker turned soothsayer made the bombshell revelation of a global paedophilic pornography ring, without even conducting a basic check. After being harshly reprimanded by the Supreme Court, he apologised, but not before misleading the entire country and wasting the government’s resources on a wild goose chase. It was disinformation of the highest order.

His defence though was even more telling, when he said that the “investigation was not his responsibility and it was the job of state institutions to find the authenticity of the news … I did not provide this information with any wrong intent”.

Actually, it WAS his job. In fact, that was his ONLY job. An investigative piece without any investigation is just a baseless claim. It is not the job of state institutions.

This kind of mindset among media personalities lies at the root of the problem. When self-proclaimed experts who claim to know everything and everyone gets called out on their claims, they say it’s not their responsibility to verify the truth.

They might be a lot of things, but they are not journalists.

Leaks and ‘fake news’

A major reason behind the Peca ordinance seems to be the never-ending flurry of rumours about the government and its direction, or lack thereof. A sinking ship tends to leak the most after all. The government and its echo chambers dismiss these rumors as agenda-driven lies and smears done at the behest of political opponents or anti-state elements. The naysayers on social media have a special place for this form of “yellow journalism”, and ‘fake news’. Even when its real.

On April 15, 2019, some news channels reported a possible shuffle in the federal cabinet and the change in portfolios of several ministers, including the removal of Asad Umar as finance minister.

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry denied the news, terming the reports baseless. The next day, the Pemra slapped fines on the news channels for airing “fake and unsubstantiated news”, and “creating chaos among the public and maligning the government functionaries”.

Three days later, the “fake news” of the cabinet shuffle became real. Asad Umar, among others, was removed from his portfolio.

A similar situation occurred with Umar Cheema’s reporting on PM Imran's third marriage, which was rebutted by the PTI initially as false and irresponsible reporting, before admitting to it weeks later. Of course, the episode turned the investigative reporter into enemy no.1, resulting in him being included in the eponymous ‘anti-state sahafi’ list, and even led to a social media trend targeting his wife.

This isn’t a new development in any way. Denial of news stories to avoid potentially embarrassing or incriminating disclosure is as old as journalism itself. The problem though is when the denial is accompanied by the character assassination of the journalist, followed by targeted verbal and institutional attacks against the media outlet.

These campaigns are designed to intimidate and harass, so that the media house backs off from its original story, or backs off from its support of the reporter. This is a major reason why several major anchors and journalists have been forced to resign or suspend their programmes.

In Pakistan though, we assassinate more than just someone’s character.

Treason and ‘fake news’

Consider the drone programme and its disclosure. Prior to November 2005, the Musharraf regime denied its existence altogether, attributing the strikes to aerial bombing by the Pakistan Air Force. It took a local reporter’s pictures of the Hellfire missile remnants in Miran Shah for the government to officially admit to the US-led program.

The episode was an embarrassment for Musharraf. The reporter was subsequently abducted and later found dead. His wife, who demanded justice, also mysteriously disappeared.

This is just one example of many where embarrassing the government or holding it publicly accountable is seen as a bigger crime than the actual actions of the government. Some say it speaks to our society’s penchant for viewing talking about vices as a bigger crime than the vices themselves, which is why honour killings and child abuse run rampant.

Channels have faced much heat when contradicting or defying the government's narratives, whether it was the disclosure that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani citizen, or when reporting on killings in Balochistan.

However, the anti-media opposition has gone a step further, labelling these journalists as enemies of Pakistan, pressuring news channels to remove them, and attacking them with vitriol and abuse on social media. It is not uncommon to find some trend on Twitter referring to journalists with unflattering words of a sexual nature, or labelling them anti-state because somehow not following the state’s narrative is the biggest crime a journalist can do.

The question then arises: since when is following the state’s version the only way to cover a story? And since when is not covering that version a form of treason?

People who think this way clearly don’t understand the difference between public relations and media. One is reminded of a tweet by former US President Donald Trump stating, “CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly”.

In response, the CNN said: “It’s not CNN’s job to represent the US to the world That’s yours. Our job is to report the news.”

This exposes our fundamental misunderstanding of what the media is supposed to do. Our insecurities belie our weakness, whereby talking about the crime is worse than the crime itself because it will harm our image in the world.

In a country gripped by paranoia, everything has fallen under the national security ambit, and hence any example of going contrary is seen as anti-state. The Pemra laws, in all their wonderous ambiguity, have made a sport out of fining and banning channels that dare to venture beyond or against the official version.

But if all official versions were true, journalism would not exist. The whole point is to investigate beyond what’s told to us and find out what’s really going on.

Echo chambers on the airwaves

The fact is that conspiracy mongering sells well in Pakistan. Moreover, due to a lack of checks, few if any get called out on it, leaving them free to rant on about grand international illuminati-esque conspiracies against Pakistan, or targeting groups on the basis of their faith, or both. In some extreme cases, they even go to the extent of actively encouraging killings against individuals or groups.

This makes the line between news and opinion even more blurry. When you are actively engaging in discourse that creates divisions, sows hatred, and incites violence, is it really justified as journalism? Furthermore, where do we draw the line between news and hate speech?

While the former can be easily answered, the latter is not, because in Pakistan people tend to consider anything as hate speech or fake news. Just because you are offended by something, does not make it fake or hate speech.

However, Pakistan’s media has been known to prodigiously delve in “dangerous speech”, where the words of an individual or group can lead to persecution and violence. The criteria, developed by renowned researcher Susan Benesch, specifically assesses the increase of risk that the viewing audience will commit or condone violence against another individual or group, particularly on the basis of faith, gender, ethnicity, etc., promoting fear or hatred against that group, and using false assertions, or unverified claims and active disinformation to do so.

Interestingly, here the hyper sensitive and litigious Pemra seems to pay little attention, despite numerous complaints and calls for action against channels involved in “dangerous speech”. Instead, the regulatory authority seems far more interested in instituting bans on hugs on TV dramas than calls to behead people.

The Faizabad riots are an important case in point. The coverage by a certain private channel was particularly damning for creating a sympathetic portrayal of the rioters, creating a sentiment against the government akin to a religious pogrom, and completely denying any of the violence and damage committed by the protesters. The channel’s agenda-driven coverage directly contributed to the violence, as noted by the Supreme Court, yet there was little in terms of punitive action.

Former Pemra Chairman Absar Alam went a step further, saying that while he wanted action to be taken against the channel, there was active state intervention to make sure it stayed on the airwaves.

Of course, for making these assertions, Absar Alam was labelled an anti-state agent, to the point that the attempt on his life was called a staged ‘drama’ by many on social media.

Interestingly, these efforts were also criticised by some in the journalist community, as a threat to the country's ideology and the sanctity of the blasphemy laws, essentially just fanning the flames further. It doesn’t help that the same journalists proudly proclaimed that twisting the truth is perfectly justified in the national interest.

A new level of moral absolutism has crept into the journalist community, one that squarely supports any and all actions of the country and state as beneficial to the nation. Anyone contradicting it is seen as enemy no.1 and is subject to silence or intimidation. Those in the middle, prefer to self-censor.

This in turn sows the seeds for the legitimisation of disinformation — the deliberate spread of falsehoods. This is a phenomenon called “advocacy media”, where talk show hosts will support a certain political side or ideology, even to the point of twisting facts, covering up others, and actively propagating falsehoods.

The United States has seen the effects of this polarisation with the “Stop the Steal” movement to discredit the 2020 Elections by members from Fox News, Newsmax and others.

Importantly, the architects of this crusade, such as Sean Hannity don’t refer to themselves as journalists, but rather as “opinion talk show hosts” or “advocacy journalists”. This gives them a way out, as these hosts are not bound by the standards and checks that apply for media professionals, such as verifying what you say.

Sounds familiar, right?

For the viewer, it is impossible to tell the truth anymore. If you are an avid follower of an anchor or TV channel, chances are you will believe their content without questioning it. Viewers can’t tell the difference between media and “advocacy media”, which in turn spreads disinformation even further.

Responsibility and accountability

Whether one agrees or not, the Peca is a necessary piece of legislation. There is indeed a need to clamp down on information disorder. However, the terminology used, and the potential intended beneficiaries or affectees, make it very clear where the law lies and where it stands to harm. If there is to be an actual law against ‘fake news’, we need to draw some clear lines.

First, we cannot pick and choose whom to target and how. The law needs to be applied indiscriminately. So the next time a federal minister tweets a fake letter implying a falsehood regarding leud practices during a protest, he or she must be held to the same treatment as someone whose home is raided by the FIA due to an implication on a TV show.

The use of the term ‘fake news’ also needs to be done away with. The word has become far too politicised to be of any use, and must therefore be replaced by something more sensible. A few examples have already been applied in this piece.

Third, there is a need to draw up specific definitions of what qualifies as information disorder. Denying a news story does not make it a false story as the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's now-defunct ‘fake news buster’ tried to do time and time again. Nor can any story that criticises the government and its officials qualify as a form of fake news or a threat to the state. A democracy needs to accept accountability as a fundamental pillar, and journalism is a critical component of that pillar.

There is also a dire need to recognise our own biases within society. We need to hold ourselves accountable and introspect as to whether our own beliefs may be misguided too. Understanding cognitive biases and removing them from our systems are key to protecting ourselves from information disorder. And that begins with critical thinking.

We must also understand that journalists themselves need to hold themselves to account. There are far too many soothsayers and fortune tellers amidst hardworking professionals, and they need to be weeded out. We need to accept out faults where they lie. We cannot be part of the echo chambers that contribute to societal divisions.

Lastly, we need to accept that journalism is an evolving field. We won’t get it right every time. But that does not mean that we are enemies of the state. What we can’t do is silence ourselves out of threat of legal action or violence.

Nor can we silence the media in the name of protecting our image. We have to be more secure about who we are. The first step in getting better is admitting our flaws and a strong media institution does just that.

It is our right to be wrong sometimes. That’s the only way we will ever get it right.

Header illustration: Branko Devic/ Shutterstock